Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Eleventh Circuit Stops Plan Confirmation Stampede
"When a modification to a Chapter 11 reorganization plan materially and adversely affects the treatment of a class of claim or interest holders, those claim or interest holders are entitled to a new disclosure statement and another opportunity to vote." In re America-CV Station Group, Inc., 2023 WL 109967 (11th Cir. Jan. 5, 2023). In this case, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit just upended a hastily confirmed reorganization plan. Its holding should stop the stampede known as the "confirmation express." The bankruptcy court had summarily approved a plan modification that "materially and adversely affected" the rights of objecting pre-bankruptcy shareholders (Shareholders), depriving them of procedural protections and impairing their substantive rights. In reversing, the Eleventh Circuit directed "the bankruptcy court to fashion an equitable remedy …." Id. at *8.
Relevance
Debtors routinely modify reorganization plans shortly before a confirmation hearing. These modifications usually are either immaterial or are consensual. In the words of the Eleventh Circuit, modifying the plan "before confirmation is relatively easy: the 'proponent of a plan may modify such plan any time before confirmation.'" Id. at *4, quoting Bankruptcy Code (Code) §1127(a). "Easy modification allows negotiated outcomes to quickly become part of the plan," said the court.
There is an important limit, though, to easy plan modification. Aside from substantive and procedural constraints, discussed below, a creditor or equity holder of a corporate debtor or LLC is entitled to procedural protections if the bankruptcy court finds that the modification "materially and adversely changes the way that claim or interest holder is treated." Id., quoting In re New Power Co., 438 F.3d 1113, 1117-18 (11th Cir. 2006). When the parties appear to have accepted a plan and a confirmation hearing approaches, however, courts and most parties are eager to have the court confirm the plan quickly and move on, ignoring objections from interested parties, dismissing them as noise. That is apparently what happened in America-CV.
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
The Article 8 Opt In
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
Removing Restrictive Covenants In New York
In Rockwell v. Despart, the New York Supreme Court, Third Department, recently revisited a recurring question: When may a landowner seek judicial removal of a covenant restricting use of her land?